This Hacker News discussion revolves around the increasing trend of "walled gardens" in technology, primarily driven by major tech companies like Apple and Google, and the implications for user freedom, innovation, and market competition. The conversation touches on various aspects of this issue, from operating system lockdown on phones to broader questions of digital ownership and corporate power.
Erosion of User Control and the Rise of Walled Gardens
A central theme is the perceived loss of user control over their own devices, particularly smartphones. Users express concern about companies dictating what software can be run, how it can be run, and the overall experience. This is seen as a departure from the more open computing environments of the past.
- "No, says the car manufacturers, those cycles belong to us," and "No, says the nerds in Redmond, your computer belongs to us" set a broad context of industries claiming ownership over their product cycles.
- "add-sub-mul-div" highlights this concern: "Weird last example, Windows is freer than Apple/Google. There's no path to locking down Windows like Android or iOS, half the world would break. Apple originated and normalized this, Google is following."
- "Spooky23" predicts Microsoft's future direction: "Microsoft will absolutely go down this path, they just have longer commitments and product cycles. I’d guess in 5 years you’ll start getting friction for using AD, and heavy push towards cloud services first. You’ll probably have to subscribe to legacy features or migrate to Azure to use them." They also note that Microsoft's "legacy systems management tool is a zombie product, and the replacement is Intune, which and an MDM solution which locks you out of your computer similar to Android or iOS."
- "kylecazar" frames the issue as "ownership vs. licensing": "You own the hardware you buy, but you license the software. I agree with the author that as long as you use that software, you should be subject to the constraints of the license. The key is that if you choose not to run that software, your hardware should not be constrained. You own the hardware, it's a tangible thing that is your property."
- "Aerroon" questions the disparity: "Because I did. How come I can do what I want with my computer, but not my phone? Why are phones so inferior in this area?"
The Cellular Network as a Control Point
A significant portion of the discussion focuses on the cellular network as a critical barrier to true open hardware and alternative operating systems on phones. The difficulty in certifying hardware for cellular networks is seen as a major hurdle, manipulated by carriers to maintain control.
- "bsder" states, "The primary problem is that we can't build a phone and run it on a cellular carrier network. This is where legislation is needed. Apple and Google are still a problem, but they are a secondary problem."
- "bsder" elaborates on the process: "The problem right now is that even if I had a couple of million dollars lying around, I STILL couldn't reliably get a piece of hardware certified for the cellular network. I would have to set up a company, spend untold amounts of money bribing^Wwooing cellular company executives for a couple years, and, maybe, just maybe, I could get my phone through the certification process. The technical aspects of certification are the easy part. The problem is that the cellular companies fully understand that when it happens their power goes to zero because they suddenly become a dumb pipe that everybody just wants to ignore. That's why this will take legislation."
- "fijiaarone" counters the "tragedy of the commons" argument: "Monopolists always talk about the tragedy of the commons, but don’t see anything wrong with the tragedy of the monopoly and don’t want you to think anything can exist in between."
The Power Imbalance and the Need for Regulation
Many participants believe that the immense power wielded by tech giants necessitates government intervention. The ability of companies like Apple and Google to influence global markets and user behavior is compared to the power of nation-states, leading to a call for regulation to ensure a more equitable technological landscape.
- "idle_zealot" argues for accountability: "Google and Apple have more power than most nations. I'm all for mandating that they change their code to be less user-hostile, for the same reason I prefer democracy to autocracy. Any party with power enough to impact millions of lives needs to be accountable to those it affects."
- "jacquesm" echoes this sentiment: "And that is what is wrong here. Even the smallest nation should be far more powerful than the largest corporation. But corporations are now more powerful than most nations, including some really big ones."
- "cyphar" highlights the concerning powers corporations wield: "Even the smallest nations have the legal right to permanently incarcerate, strip you of your assets or even murder you if you are in their sphere of influence. I would hope you'd agree those are not powers that we should grant to large corporations..."
- "SilverElfin" calls for treating large tech companies as state-owned entities: "Yep. They control our information - how we make it, what we are allowed to find, and what we can say. And they are large enough to not face real competition. So let’s treat them like the state owned corporations they are and regulate heavily."
- "echelon" strongly advocates for a "mobile bill of rights": "The devices all of society has standardized upon should not be owned by companies after purchase... The devices all of society has standardized upon should be strictly regulated by governments all around the world to ensure citizens and businesses cannot be strong-armed."
The Role of Software vs. Hardware and the Complexity of Modern Devices
The discussion delves into the nuance of hardware versus software control. While the ideal is open hardware, the reality of complex, integrated devices makes open-source software and drivers a significant challenge, often requiring substantial effort and resources. The concept of "binblobs" (binary blobs) and the reliance on proprietary firmware for hardware functionality are acknowledged as persistent problems.
- "SchemaLoad" points out the practical difficulties: "The M1 Macbook Air is 5 years old now, has an active development, lots of community funding and attention, yet is still missing basic functionality like external monitors and video decoding. Because it's just a mammoth task to support modern hardware. Unless you have a whole paid team on it you’ve no hope."
- "jetbalsa" notes the limitations of even "open" systems: "Only runs on a handful of hardware, and still uses the binblobs from google for the hardware devices."
- "SlowTao" relates this to past challenges: "That is a fair point, this is a similar issue that Libre-boot went through a few years back. Yes, you try to stick clear of binary blobs as much as possible but at a certain point you just run out of hardware that meets that criteria."
- "hibikir" emphasizes the complexity: "When the hardware is complicated enough that the software required to run it al all would take many millions of dollars to replicate, hardware freedom alone doesn't cut it. Just like a modern processor needs mountains of microcode to do anything you'd actually want."
- "glitchc" describes the cyclical nature of computing: "Now, we're circling back to heterogeneous hardware where software and hardware are tightly coupled for the best performance and power efficiency. ... In this case, it's flexibility. The smartphone does not consist of just one processor, it's a collection of dedicated processors, each running custom algorithms locally."
The "More Eyeballs" Argument and Open Source vs. Proprietary Software
There's a debate on the effectiveness of open-source software in ensuring security and quality, particularly when it comes to the "more eyeballs make bugs shallow" principle. Some argue that while open source has benefits, the reality of user engagement with code is often different, and that commercial software can sometimes offer better user experience, security, or support, especially for less technical users.
- "positron26" expresses skepticism about widespread code auditing: "This doesn't just affect non-programmers. We can't even police NPM. People want it to be true so that it will be a talking point, but it's not true, and we need to find new talking points that align with facts that are evident outside the echo chambers." They further state, "The whole idea of more programmers spending more time reading other people's programs is wholly born from within programmer communities... forgetting that the average user will never program and not because they lack access. It's a romanticized ideal that is only even a plausible idea in a room full of programmers."
- "fellowmartian" believes "Open hardware with open source software would be more protected simply by being more stress tested and vetted by more people."
- "rmunn" counters with personal experience: "But one of the biggest reasons, for me at least, why I prefer to use open-source software rather than commercial if I have a choice is bug fixes. I've reported over a dozen bugs against open-source software I use over the years; most of them have been fixed... I've rarely even been able to report a bug against closed-source software."
The Security vs. Freedom Trade-off and User Trust
A recurring tension is the perceived trade-off between security and freedom. Companies often justify restrictions by citing security concerns for the average user, while others argue that this comes at the cost of user liberty and that users should have the choice to opt into less secure, more open configurations. The question of who is the "attacker" – the user or the company – is also raised.
- "scosman" defends locked-down devices: "Make cool hacker centric hardware. Make cool easy to use, locked down, and foolproof hardware. Both can and should exist." They argue that "Most people don't have the technical literacy to have 'informed consent' prompts popping up every 5 minutes, and most of them know it too. Most folks don't mind trusting Apple to make the tougher technical calls for them, and actually appreciate it."
- "fastball" prefers a secure iPhone: "Much harder to make a secure device that is resistant to getting pwn'd if you can run any code you want. I personally prefer my iPhone to be more secure than to be more open."
- "gdulli" laments the loss of liberty: "Once you decide to trade your liberty for security, it becomes the norm and then no one has liberty."
- "echelon" prioritizes freedom: "Freedom > Privacy > Security. Never give up your freedom. If you have to give up your privacy to ensure your freedom, so be it. If you have to give up your security to ensure your privacy, so be it."
- "tzury" proposes a dual-market approach: "We need both options to coexist: 1. Open, hackable hardware for those who want full control and for driving innovation 2. Locked-down, managed devices for vulnerable users who benefit from protection... The problem isn't that locked-down devices exist - it's that we don't have enough truly open alternatives for those who want them."
- "The problem isn't that locked-down devices exist - it's that we don't have enough truly open alternatives for those who want them." is a sentiment echoed by several users, suggesting that the existence of locked-down devices isn't inherently bad, but the lack of viable open alternatives is the core issue.
IP Protection, Monopolies, and Innovation
The role of Intellectual Property (IP) laws, especially copyright and patent, is brought up as a potential contributor to the current problems, enabling monopolies and hindering innovation and repair.
- "Ferret7446" questions IP protections: "I think we really need to discuss whether IP/copyright protections were a mistake. A LOT of our 'modern' problems stem from IP protections. Whether that be not being able to own media, right to repair, DRM, censorship, a lot of monopolistic behavior, medicine prices, etc."
- "throwaway13337" agrees, stating, "Monopoly is the killer of the market engine that powers the positive sum society we all benefit from."
- "pishpash" suggests adjusting IP protection periods: "The protection period simply needs to be adjusted downward to reflect the faster pace of change. Rewarding 1700's technology pace today is asinine."
Distinguishing Between Company Restrictions and Government Overreach
A nuanced point is made about the nature of corporate control versus government mandates. While some advocate for government intervention, others distinguish between a company choosing to lock down its product and a government forcing companies to do so. The ability to choose alternative devices is often cited as a form of freedom.
- "marcus_holmes" articulates this view: "I genuinely think it's OK for a device manufacturer to say: 'we are building this device to run this software. If you don't want to run this software, then don't buy this device.'" However, they differentiate this from actively preventing modification: "I think that's a huge difference from the sideloading issue, though. Which is effectively saying 'you must purchase all your software for this device from us, even if it's not our software...'"
- "fastball" reiterates this: "Apple is a company, not a government. I haven't traded my liberty for anything. Again, you can buy a different phone – that is where liberty comes into this equation."
The Role of AI in Hardware/Software Development
The potential impact of AI on the creation of drivers and operating systems is briefly discussed, with some suggesting AI could be a significant enabler for open-source hardware development.
- "AtlasBarfed" speculates: "It should be able to make an OS. It should be able to write drivers. It should be able to port code to new platforms. It should be able to transpile compiled binaries... What I described are labor-intensive and complicated, but not 'difficult'. And would any corporate AI allow that?"
In summary, the discussion paints a picture of growing concern over corporate control in the digital realm, with calls for greater user freedom, more open alternatives, and potential regulatory intervention to counterbalance the immense power of tech giants, all while acknowledging the technical complexities and differing user needs in today's sophisticated hardware and software landscape.